Delirium wrote

Date: 2006/11/05 Sun PM 09:49:44 GMT

I suppose it depends on what you mean by COI---if you mean say merely a financial conflict of interest then that's tenable, but there are plenty of others that would seem to disqualify whole slews of editors, especially experts in the subject. For example, artificial intelligence (my area) is a very contentious field, and people within it disagree strongly about what in the field is notable or worth pursuing, and even disagree about how to narrate its history. I think it would be reasonable to say that anyone who is an active AI researcher has a conflict of interest when it comes to editing AI-related articles, and yet our articles wouldn't get very far if all AI researchers had to recuse themselves!

The first business at [[WP:COI]] is indeed to define 'conflict of interest', as it applies to edits of WP. Given the heckling about having such a guideline at all, it is worth pointing out that there is now a simple definition available. If, in making an edit, you are putting your own interests ahead of Wikipedia's, you are evidently experiencing such a conflict.

Later the guideline deals with the 'temptation' issue: if your outside interests are going to put you in temptations way, because you are seriously committed to something (anything) very likely to slant your edits, then it is deprecated that you go ahead and edit. Most academics are able to discuss views different from their own without their faces contorting with rage; but those who've been around the corridors and coffee times of academia know that it is not always the case that objectivity can be maintained. So there are cases where academics should stay away, and the ArbCom has had such a case where it ruled against the professor.

Charles

----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information